Rating and Stats

Document Actions

Share or Embed Document

Maisonneuve & Larose

Mysticism and the Linguistic Problem of Equivocation in the Thought of 'Ayn Al-Quḍāt Hamadānī Author(s): Toshihiko Izutsu Source: Studia Islamica, No. 31 (1970), pp. 153-170 Published by: Maisonneuve & Larose Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1595070 . Accessed: 08/10/2011 10:37
Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Maisonneuve & Larose is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Studia Islamica.

http://www.jstor.org

) he never concealed his unreserved admiration. to analyze the very original semantic present paper purports aspect of the thought of this philosophic genius who has been up to a short time ago unduly neglected by the orientalists (). Ndme-hd-ye
. 1962. 1962. Hamadan. and as a result was executed as a heretic in his native town. of mystical penetration and rational thinking. He was a mystic of profound spiritual experiences. and at the same time a thinker endowed with an unusually keen intellectual On the ground of this happy combination power of analysis. with appalling cruelty by the hands of a Seljuqid vizier of Iraq.AND PROBLEM MYSTICISM THE LINGUISTIC IN OF EQUIVOCATIONTHETHOUGHT OF 'AYNAL-QUDAT HAMADANI
'Ayn al-Qudat Hamadani (1098-1131) stands out as a tragic Like his great prefigure in the history of Islamic thought. (3) his < Epistles >. 'Ayn al-Qudat provoked by his ((free ) thinking implacable envy and hatred in the minds of the conservative orthodox theologians and lawyers. at the age of 33. one can rightly regard him as a precursor of the long Iranian tradition of Hikmat philosophy to be inaugurated soon after his death by The Suhrawardi (1153-1191) and Ibn 'Arabi (1165-1240).
(1) The study is based on three of his major works that have been edited and published in Tehran : (1) Zubdat al-. 'Afif 'Oseyr&n.Iaqd'iq (Arabic) ed. 'Afif 'Oseyran. (2) Tamhidat (Persian) ed. decessor Mansuir al-Hallaj (857-922) for whose ana al-Haqq (e I am the Absolute! .

Man's stepping into the divine world is for Hamadani an event of decisive importance consisting in the realization of a new depth of consciousness in his interior. McGill Uhiversity. 6-7. Without being clearly conscious of the fact.
. and we might say. pp. two types of knowledge holds true at the higher level of the religious life. will be found to consist in making a sharp distinction between knowing the reality of a thing through an immediate personal experience of it and knowing something about the thing. He could only overcome it by the perusal of the works of Abi Hamid alGhazali (1058-1111). 'Afif 'Oseyran and 'Alinaqi Munzawi. He did not meet personally Ghazali. to which he devoted four years. It was under Ahmad Ghazali's personal guidance that he went definitely beyond the boundaries of rational thinking far into the divine world itself where human reason and its logical function are reduced to utter powerlessness (1). when quite by chance he met the brother of Abu Hamid the noted mystic master Ahmad alGhazali (d. 'Ayn al-Qudat noticed this difference himself through a personal. A spiritual crisis came. It is my pleasant duty to add that in the course of preparing this paper I have profited much by valuable suggestions made by Professor Hermann Landolt of the Institute of Islamic Studies. bewilderment and despair. At first he was making a most extensive study of theological works. circa 1126). existential experience. 1969. but under the latter's spiritual guidance he went to the extreme limits of intellectual power and almost went over them. Thus to know something about God is completely different from knowing Him by coming into direct contact with the divine order of things. ed. reduced to the most elementary form. (1) This whole process of spiritual development is described with a beautiful touch of lyricism by 'Ayn al-Qudat himself in Zubdah. To know about honey that it is sweet is one thing.154
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
The basic principle underlying the whole structure of Hamadani's thought. It implies man's
'Ayn al-Quddt-e Hamadani (Persian). to know by experience the The same distinction between sweetness of honey another. But the study of theology caused in his mind nothing but confusion. he was gradually stepping into the supra-intellectual domain of Divine Mystery.

(4) Ibid. (6) Cf.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-OUDiT HAMADiNI
155
existential transition to an entirely different plane of consciousHamad&ni ness from that of sensation and rational thinking.. (2) Ibid. this subjective e light.. It is also called the . reach perfection unless he goes beyond the <domain of reason . 26. Our language is at its best when it is used to express and describe our experiences in the empirical world where the senses and reason fulfil their natural functions. after reason (al-tawr alladhl ba'da al-'aql).
. 30. (3) Ibid. The very structure of the whole world of Being. ibid. Sometimes it is described as the <appearance of light in the interior (4) (zuhar nar fT al-bdtin).35. is such that the last stage of the domain of empirical experiences is directly connected with the first stage of the < domain beyond reason > (7). or negates the value of. according to him. p. p... ibid. 7. 10. or <of the eye of gnostic cognition> (2) ('ayn al-ma'rifah). does not and rational thinking (6). Ontologically. p. reason But man. It is one of the technical expressions that appear (5) Ibid.. p. 27. Not that Hamadani despises. He refers to it also by saying: < a window is opened in your interior toward the domain of the supra-sensible order of things)>(rawzanah ila 'dlam al-malakat (s).. But even in this dimension it often happens that we get embar-
(1) Zubdah. It goes without saying that the words and their combinations which are at our disposal are primarily so made that they might most conveniently and suitably be used for the purposes of daily communication. domain (that comes) constantly in Hamadani's writings. p. calls this event the e opening of the eye of spiritual vision >(1) (infilah 'ayn al-basTrah). and passim. (7) Cf. 58. p. p. lightens up what he calls the ( domain beyond reason) (al-lawr ward'a al-'aql) (5). and passim. we are now in a position to discuss the nature of the specific problems raised by Hamadani with regard to the semantic structure of human language. After these preliminary remarks. after having gone to the utmost limits of his rational power. in his conception.. into the trans-rational dimension of things.

even mystic philosophers-in all ages many mystic poets-or have created systems of symbols and taken refuge in them. in order that we might be able to understand the full meaning of a word used in an < equivocal > way-not to speak of those cases in which we ourselves are using a word in such manner. 36. according to him. As Ludwig Wittgenstein
remarked (1): If someone knows how many feet high Mont Blanc
is and yet is not able to say it.156
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
rassed by the realization that there is a wide gap between what we feel or know and what we can say. And of course the situation grows far worse if. as it were. in addition to the empirical dimension of human experience. pp. But it is not symbolism that Hamadani has recourse to. And in fact. p. will be the effective means the Sufi can have recourse to in order to fill up this intrinsic deficiency of his linguistic apparatus? Or. we recognize the authenticity of the supraempirical dimension of spiritual or mystical awareness. the majority of the key-terms of religious philosophy in Islam must be interpreted by way of # equivocation >. 88 (line 16-89. 78.we have to have cultivated in ourselves an extremely flexible and.
(1) Philosophical Investigations. mobile attitude with regard to the semantic connection between a word and the meaning which it is intended to indicate. when he wishes at all to express himself verbally or describe his personal visions. or < equivocation >.
. then. he proposes that one should in such cases use words in a multi-dimensional way which he designates as lashabuh. However. for the knowledge of how a clarinet sounds is not a kind of thing which can properly be described by an ordinary combination of words at our disposal. we naturally are surprised. is there at all any? Symbolism will In fact perhaps be the first thing that one might think of. (2) Zubdah. The Sufi. What. Instead. but not so if someone knows how a clarinet sounds and yet is not able to say it. must of necessity be faced with all the linguistic problems that arise from the serious discrepancy between what he knows and what he can actually (2) say.

often commit fundamentally the same kind of mistake. view. for example. too. p. 405. This fact is easily observable even in our daily use of the most ordinary words. The attitude to place undue emphasis on words as distinguished from meanings is ultimately reducible to the fact that man naturally tends to believe that there is one-to-one corresIn Hamadani's pondence between a word and its meaning. This tendency is shown in its crudest form in the infantile use of language (1). ? 677. the same sentence < Man is composed of two parts ) (Adami do chiz ast) indicates two entirely different divisions if we mean thereby (1) ((namely. albeit in a bit more sophisticated form. But the grown-ups. (2) Epistle No. Childrenin fact cannot easily identify semantically the word layth. the one half (nfm) deals with external properties of the body while the other half (n(m) is concerned with the properties of the mind. The exact Take. for example. nothing can is something of an infinitely delicate. 452.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-QUDiT HAMADANi
157
The most serious hindrance in the way of our understanding or using words equivocally is the unduly great importance we ordinarily tend to attach to words in the word-meaning relationship. of the word varies in a delicate way according to whethmeaning er or not quantity is made the point of reference. p. The world of be farther from the truth. ? 753. Let us say: The major work of Abu HImid al-Ghazali consists of two parts. LX. the word < half . In such a case. LIII. with asad simply because these words happen to have two different external forms. because the division is here made not in terms of quantity. does not mean the precise quantitative half of the book. flexible and meanings It has no such rigid stability as corresponds flowing nature. although in Arabic both mean one and the same thing < lion >. the Persian word nmm. mind and body >(2). The head and body > and (2) ( namely. to the formal or material rigidity of words. Similarly. although normally it does not come up to the surface of clear consciousness. observation of this fact-which is by no means a difficult thing to do-simply indicates that there is an undeniable discrepancy
(1) Epistle No.
. ((half >.

By simply observing from outside the word thus employed. Hamadani. Unfortunately. one has to take a very delicate attitude towards the indicating word. The word belongs in the world of material and sensible things (mulk). while the meaning properly is of the world of immateriality (malakui). Quite independently of the word which indicates it. the use of a word in reference to it necessarily goes to the extremity of equivocation (ghdyat al-tashdbuh) (1). in order to gain an exact insight into the meaning indicated.
. does not believe that there is between a word and its meaning a strong. Moreover. 4. For one is here required to use the given word as a springboard by which to dive into the depth of the
(1) Zubdah. in his view. be it remarked at this point. the semantic tie between them is. however. the meaning develops as it were of its own accord with amazing flexibility in accordance with the degree of depth of man's experience and consciousness. The word is but a narrow gate through which the human mind steps into a boundless domain of meaning. Compared with the vast field of meaning that lies behind each word. It has no fixity. When the meaning is thus of a non-empirical nature. For there is no equal distribution of weight between the two terms of the relationship. and in a certain sense. How can it be otherwise? The two. according to Hamadani belong to different orders of being. even unreal. p. this semantic discrepancy is not so obvious on levels of discourse higher than that of empirical experience. Only a very precarious sort of equilibrium is maintained between them. one could hardly judge the width and depth of the meaning that is intended to be This is particularly true when the meaning conveyed by it. so to speak. tiny point. that has been poured into the mould of a word happens to be backed by a profound mystical experience. the latter is nothing more than an insignificant. something perfunctory. In such cases. The meaning with such characteristics is poured into the ready-made mould of a word.158
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
between the world of words and the world of meanings. purely external. its own life. inner organic tie. Quite the contrary. the meaning is something that has.

Thereare conceivablemany such levels of discourse.indeterminationand ambiguousness the use of a word. It is. Equivocation> or ( equivocality > (tashabuh) normally imin plies uncertainty. the Arabicword 'ayn is used without any clarifying context. and [B] the level of the <(domainbeyond to reason>) which referencehas earlierbeen made. 58. a case of horizontal polysemy.but Hamadani is interested principally in two of them: [A] the level of rational thinking. we must first elucidate the structure of equivocation accordingto what Hamadanisays about it. The ultimate source of these negative propertiesis polysemy. But in orderto understandthe real significanceof this idea. while what Hamadaniis concernedwith may be characterizedas vertical polysemy. e essence ).one can never hope to obtainit.
The kind of equivocation Hamadani is thinking of is completely differentfromthis type of polysemy. one must leave it there and go directly into the domain of meaning(1). For 'ayn can mean such widely < divergent things as <eye >). . for instance. Rather at the very first and the slightest touch with the word. The latter is the multidimensionalstructureof meaning based upon the multi-dinensional use of the word. etc. p.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-QUDAT HAMAAnINi
159
meaning. If. empiricaldimension
(1) Ibid. (uterine brother ). spring)>(source of water).
<(gold piece ). one is said to be using the word equivocally. or within an insufficientlyclear context.
. a semantic phenomenonin which a word happens to have in its basic structure a number of differentmeanings. The level [A] is linguisticallyno other than a linear extension of the ordinaryuse of languagein the daily. Thus the equivocation as conceived by Hamadani refers to those cases in which one and the same word-or one and the same expression-happens to be used significantly and at the sametime at two or more than two differentslevels of discourse.. we might say. For the divergent meaningsthat are connectedwith a word like 'ayn stand in one and the same dimension. As long as one remains trying to understand the meaningfrom the word.

Taking the word ( distance > in an non-spatial sense. the meanings at the [B] level are perceived only by the < eye of spiritual vision > in the < domain beyond reason >. qurb ? nearness ) at this level means for Hamadanl a certain suprasensible relationship that obtains between all existents and the Source of existence. As such.160
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
of human experience. Thus. the [A] level refers primarily to the linguistic expression of theological concepts and thinking. these two concepts are at this level still understood basically in terms of the image or idea of spatial distance. In such a case. Thus. is that the meaning which is actualized at this stage can never be reached no matter how far one may extend the meaning that obtains at the [A] level. the words-according to the basic pattern of analysis which we have here adopted-are being used at the [B] level. for instance. can be. However. The concepts of ( nearness > and ?remoteness)> in this context are but the result of the theological elaboration of the <nearness> and <remoteness )> respectively of the sensible things which we encounter in our daily empirical experiences. In the particular context which is our immediate concern. Consequently. Hamadani often speaks of all things standing at an absolutely equal distance from
. qurb and bu'd. the same words. not to speak of in the dimension of daily life. Just to give an example in a preliminary way. The most important point to note concerning the [B] level. and are in fact often used by the mystics in describing the content of their peculiar intuitions. while the believers are said to be ( close > to. the theologians often speak of the <nearness . those who do not believe in God are said to be ( remote) from Him. as we have seen above. for example. it is a perfectly significant use of the words. This comes from the fact that the meanings of all words at the [B] level are based on cognitive experiences that are of a radically different nature from what is experienced in the dimension of rational thinking. or < near God. Suffice it to say at this stage that ? nearness > here means the relationship of absolute ontological equality which all things bear to God. (qurb) and <remoteness > (bu'd) of man from God. a very peculiar relationship. For. the structure of which will be analyzed in detail later on. whether religious or metaphysical.

( essence >etc.. his statement has an authentic meaning at the supra-sensible
(1) Ibid. 62. < The whole is bigger than a part of it ). my seeing has on the empirical level an authentic meaning backed by an authentic sense experience. say. as possible meanings of the word 'ayh. when I say. at the [B] level. my statement has an authentic meaning at the level of rational thinking (the [A] level). < I see a flower ). 77. [A] and [B]. all things being at the same (non-spatial) g distance > from God. p. ((gold >. ? 104. p. ? 84. Only the ( nearness )) that is actualized in the supra-sensible dimension is of a totally different structure from the < nearness ) in the sensible or rational Otherwise expressed. 'Afif 'Oseyran. Likewise. Tehran). because each is backed by an authentic experience. when Mansfir al-Hallaj says ana al-Haqq <I am the Absolute) (2). we should not commit the mistake of entirely thinking that the meaning [A] and the meaning [B] have nothing to do with each other. since there is no spatial reference in this domain. p.e.TOUGHT OF *AYN AL-QUDAT HAMADANi
161
God (1). When I say. p. (2) For an analysis of the famous Hallajian statement. p. The relation between the meaning [A] and the meaning [B] is not at all the same as the one which obtains between. each in its peculiar dimension.i. But this change does not affect the fact that one and the same word is being used significantly and meaningfully at two different levels. 62 (Arberry's English translation: A Sufi Martyr. ( remoteness ) turns out to be exactly of the same meaning as e nearness >. see Shakwd at-Gharib (ed. qurb does maen ( nearness *. < eye . 75. and Tamhidat. ) Although. 1962. p. it is clear that. In the same way. Although Hamadani himself does not explicitly analyze the meaning of xremoteness. ((fountain ). ? 108. 36). content of ( nearness ) changes from spatial to non-spatial in accordance with the qualitative change that occurs in the human consciousness. The question is not: Which of the two meanings-[A] or [B]is genuine and real? (or which is figurative and metaphorical?) For both are equally authentic and real. 77-78. pp. the same word ((nearness has two different meanings. 12
. 1969. in this way. the semantic dimension of experience. For even at the [B] level. 36. London. for example.

p. however. words used at the [B] level are for the majority of men metaphors.e. p. The only important point is that each of these three sentences must be understood strictly in terms of the dimension to which it properly belongs. and everything has turned into the object of knowledge (which is properly speaking no longer the object of knowledge. one has to have passed through the same kind of mystical experience. Consequently. the use of words at the [B] level-even if they theoretically admit the legitimacy of such use of words-must necessarily appear as figurative (2).162
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
and supra-rational level of experience (the [B] level). ? 84. 12-13). if not absolutely impossible. since there is no subject to know it). It is in such a state that this remaining point discloses itself in the plain of pure and absolute Divinity (jabarut). empiriral dimension) is used instead of < the plain of jabaruit ). (2) Zubdah. Briefly stated. where the expression <the plain of mulk > (i. 355. with regard to words and sentences belonging to the [B] level is extremely For ana al-Haqq (of difficult. ? 560. To have this kind of understanding. Both expressions make good sense. ( Here there is no more the subject of knowledge left.
. al-Hallaj). 24 (11.>.
(1) Tamhldat. but its linguistic expression is actualized only in the empirical wolrld. the act of knowing itself has been annihilated. p. Cf. Subhdan( Glory to Me >(of Bastami) and the like are all inspired utterances made by mystics of the highest spiritual calibre when they happen to be in an unusual state of consciousness-a state in which their rational power has broken down and in which they have been ( annihilated in the illumination of the overpowering Light of eternity . 62. for instance. because the mystical experience in question belongs to the dimension of jabarut. The word nur <light >. is for them simply a metaphor when God is called Light. Epistle XLII. Then what could Husayn (al-Hallaj) say but ana al-Haqq! What could Bayazid (Bastami) say but Subahdn >(1) It will be clear that in order that one might be able to understand the meaning of such utterances strictly in terms of the [B] level to which they belong. for those who have no direct experiential knowledge of the < domain beyond reason ).

it is rather the meaning at the [A] level (i. but a theological extension of the ordinary use of language. pre-theological understanding of the same word. 176-177. pp.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-QUDAT HAMADANi
163
For those who have direct access to the ( domain beyond reason >. As a typical example illustrating the semantic structure of language at the [A] and [B] level. In this particular context the [A] use of language is metaphorical.e. so 'ilm <knowledge >. As in the foregoing. the in this context is conceived as one of the Attributes knowledge of God. God's knowledge >. about which Hamadani himself goes into considerable detail. we shall now take up the word 'ilm (4knowledge >as it appears in the phrase . or mystical level of understanding. empirical dimension. is naturally understood on the analogy of what is usually understood by the word in ordinary daily circumstances. too. (2) Epistle XXI.
. pp. Now in the ordinary.
(1) Ibid. < God knows something > is naturally understood on the analogy of <Man knows something >. 21-22. while the [B] use is real (1). Since the meaning of a word as understood at the [A] level is essentially and ultimately nothing other than a theoretic extension or elaboration of the empirical. absolute state. This because the dimension of [B] is precisely the place where reality is experienced in its original. nur in the sense of physical light) that is metaphorical. At the [A] level which is. The existence of the object precedes the existence of the subject qua subject: (S -0) (2). < knowledge > has a peculiar structure of its own based on a two-term relation between the subject ('dlim the ( knower >) and the object (ma'lam the <known >). however. the subject when and only when there is something to be known.. let [A] represent the theological and [B] the supra-rational. as noted before. ? 270. That is to of knowledge can play the role of a subject say. And what is peculiar about this cognitive relationship consists in the fact that the subject is passive and the object active. And within the confines of this understanding various theological problems are raised and discussed by the for theologians under the' title of the < divine Attributes >>.

. we would thereby be For implying that God's knowledge is something contingent. Thus the theological proposition ? God knows X ) would be understood in the following sense: There is first X as a possible object of divine knowledge. ? 219. Where then would be the omniscience of God? Curiously enough. The object. According as God becomes aware of them. new cognitive states would have to occur constantly in His mind. p. the subject. 25. Moreover. God does have an Attribute called < knowledge ?. If we say Yes. we say No. this statement of God's ignorance. in short. This aporia arises when. 150. acts upon. we would simply be saying that God is ignorant of certain things. i. in order to escape this difficulty. it must also go on changing from moment to moment. the empirical world is by nature a domain of contingency. namely the proposition: ( The knowledge of the Eternal does not comprehend the particulars of the (empirical) world ) ('ilm-e azal be-juz'Tyad-e 'alam muhil was precisely one of the statements for the sake of which nmst) (2) Hamadani was accused of heresy and unbelief. But to admit this would be nothing other than admitting
the contingency of God's knowledge (1). and new states of affairs are constantly occurring. If God's is to pursue the particular things as they go on knowledge changing from moment to moment. p.
(1) Zubdah.e.164
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
This peculiar structure of empirical knowledge is transferred consciously or unconsciously to the theological plane of thinking. and the God comes to know it as it really is. and determines. but it can exercise its function only when there are proper objects to be known. on the assumption that ( knowledge ) at all levels of experience maintains the above-mentioned basic structure: (S -O).
If. the individual things and events of the empirical world. 22. No particular thing remains exactly the same for two units of time. Hence the notorious aporia concerning God's knowledge of the particulars. we ask the theological question whether God knows the particulars. in this world new things incessantly come into being. All things are there constantly changing. p. (2) Epistle VIII.

the very Hamadani explains this disexistence of the object known. namely. to grasp the read semantic structure of God's knowledge. on the contrary. tinction by an example taken from the domain of daily experience. the two levels of discourse. is actualized only after the existIn this case it is my epistle that is the cause ence of my epistle. pp. between two kinds of knowledge: (1) knowledge which presupposes. and from which is derived. the above aporia itself arises simply because the theologians understand the meaning of ( knowledge * on the analogy of what is meant by the same word in the empiThis way of understanding rical dimension of experience. In order. 150-151. consider it as somethinking. one will have to push one's analysis further beyond the confines of ordinary rational thinking into the intermediary region (1) lying between the [A] level and [B] level.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-QUDAT HAMADANi
165
According to Hamadani. one will have to have recourse to a peculiar type of thinking which is at once rational reasoning and metaphysical intuition. the epistle would not have come into being. If it were not for this knowledge. More concretely stated. thing going beyond the [A] dimension. (2) Epistle VIII. so that according to his own description the analysis here in question would seem to be made still within the confines of theological But for the sake of clarity we had better. first of all. And this knowledge of mine was the cause of the existence of this epistle. that the use of language at this level is but a theological The theologians extension of the empirical use of language. and is derived from.
. however. A distinction must be made.
(1) 'Ayn al-Qudat himself does not speak of the < intermediary region >between Theoretically he seems to be content with his distinction between [A] and [B]. This will be done in the following way. ( My knowledge about this epistle (which I am now sending to you) had been there in my mind before I actually began writing it. and (2) knowledge which is presupposed by. are after all people who cannot break the magic spell of ordinary language. I think. Your knowledge of my epistle. as something quite natural in the light of what we have appears said earlier about the semantic structure of the [A] level. ? 220. The relation between of the existence of your knowledge >(2). the existence of the object to be known.

Thus through the basic distinction made between the two kinds of knowledge. whether of the empirical world or of the supraempirical world. As used at the [B] level. in the use of the term ((knowledge > still some reference. <<with-ness > or the absolute non-separation of God from all things). God's ma'lyah (lit. ? 251. 20. But on the other hand there is also noticeable a remarkable difference between the [B] level and the preceding levels. 166. that we constantly find things in the empirical world standing in priority-posteriority relationship to each other. (2) Epistle III. From this conclusion to the highest level of discourse (level [B]) it is only a matter of one further step. are to the infinite width of God's eternal knowledge just as one single letter (of one single word) appearing in this epistle is to the width of my knowledge and ability >(1). He concludes: ( The knowledge of the Eternal is the very Source of existence (yanbi'-e wujid). words. It is a matter of common experience. because Hamadani himself declares that it is his original idea and that nobody has ever expressed such a view on this problem (2).166
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
God's knowledge and the particulars must be understood as of the same structure as the relation which holds in this example between < my knowledge # and < this epistle of mine >. whether [A] or the intermediary. For God's (<knowledge ) here means purely metaphysical. on the contrary. ( knowledge > carries Its meaning is absolutely no epistemological connotation. p. For even at the intermediary stage which has just been described and which is evidently very much of a metaphysical or ontological nature. in other thing of an epistemological connotation. This is an interesting point which needs to be elucidated in some detail. The appear(1) Epistle XIX. All existents. Hamadani's thought approaches the metaphysical dimension of things. and consequently the equidistance of all things from their ultimate ontological Source. to the ordinary mental activity of man by which he perceives and knows objective things. no matter how slight it may be. he begins to argue. the word ( knowledge # still retains someThere is.
. p. ? 22.

have its own cause C. between things. A thing A. the latter being the cause of the former. ( There are in this epistle of mine..D.
. etc.--. horizontal order) of existence. B. Now suppose someone says: The tenth line comes into being from the ninenth. (length ?. written) after another letter. According to Hamadani this view is completely wrong. lit. in order to must have something else. etc.-..B. In a similar way.. All things are here contemplated co-existing in a limitless. the movement of the pen with which I am now writing these words follows the movement of my hand. Each letter comes into being (i. (1) the pen which is an instrument by which I am writing. for example. ? 23. the third line after the second. the fourth after the third. 21. as its cause. lit. a-temporal expanse ('ard. B in its turn must exist. ((breadth . The structure of the events of this kind. For in this perspective. Hamadani criticizes Ibn Sina by saying that the latter has confused the empirical dimension with the divine dimension when he has established his proof of the existence of God on the causal connections between things. will appear in a completely different light when looked at from the point of view of the divine dimension. Ibn Sin5 believes to have found the Cause of all causes... both the sun and its beams are found to be standing at an equal distance from the Absolute..e. God the Absolute.. myself) stand on one single plane and at equal distance from the Absolute. the
(1) Ibid... for example. p. is ten thousand letters.. And the second line comes after the first line.e. A.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-QUDAT HAMADANI
167
ance of the sunbeams.. All this because we are now in a metaphysical region where there is no temporal succession (ful. He points out the crucial weakness of Ibn Sina's argument in the following way (1). and finally the third from the second. And at the very extremity of the whole series of causes. comes after the rise of the sun. C must have D. which again follows the existence of myself as the writer. vertical order). the nineth from the eighth.C. however.. Likewise. the eighth from the seventh. (2) the letters written by me and (3) the writer (i.

not from that of temporal succession > (1). the existence of a certain relation between the Absolute implies But it is a very peculiar kind of and the empirical things.e. The peculiarity consists in the fact that this relation has actuality only when looked at from the side of the Absolute. he would have recognized the existential equidistance of all things from Him. The reality or existence that they seem to
(1) Ibid. having no empirical reality of their own. This person evidently is taking a wrong wiew of the matter. uncontaminated view. or tenth line from his wil
to write ). Witness how all the letters that are written on this sheet of paper stand at an equal distance from the writer.
We have only to apply this kind of thinking to the abovementioned argument of Ibn Sina to realize that the mistake committed by him consists precisely in that he is (unconsciously) ( If he representing God as something temporal (zamanl). temporal) evolvement of the epistle. he would have seen no distance between God and any contingent thing. For the Absolute absolutely transcends time. had been in possession of a pure.
. nineth. because he is seeking the position of the writer in the vertical (i. a-temporal) expanse of it. Suppose further that at this point he says: The first line itself has come into being from the will and ability (to write) of the writer. Such a person will no doubt consider the distance of the first and the second line from the will of the writer much shorter than the distance of the eighth. but not from the side of the things. This existential equidistance of all things from God is the semantic structure of the word 'ilm "knowledge" as it is used at the [B] level of discourse in reference to the divine Attribute which is indicated by the same word. For the things in the world are in themselves sheer " nothing ". There still remains one more point to mention concerning the structure of " with-ness " It will be obvious that " with-ness " (God is with all things).e.168
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
second from the first. instead of in the horizontal (i. if they are considered from the viewpoint of the a-temporal existential expanse. relation.

p. Since. p. (2) Zubdah. it is impossible in normal circumstances to think of. pp. 25 (11.TOUGHT OF 'AYN AL-QUDAT HAMADANI
169
have is derived from the very relation into which they enter by the activity of the Absolute.. 23.
. pp. each of the existents in the world is " existent " (mawjud) and " non-existent " (ma'dum) at one and the same
(1) In the terminology of the later theosophers. (6) Ibid. but we cannot reverse the order and say: The things are with God.. (3) Ibid. (5) Ibid. or to represent. 15-16). (3) Therefore. it is also true that the things do possess a certain kind of reality which is derived from God's In this sense there is a biturning His Face toward them. p. lateral relationship between the things and God. a two-term relation with " nothing " as one of its terms. 26. How could there be any relation when one of the terms of relation is " nothing "? This is precisely what is meant by Hamadani 'when he says: " Everything that exists in this world has a relation to the width of the eternal Knowledge. turning their faces toward Him (muqdbalah). 20. The things themselves have no face to turn toward God. this kind of relation is called < illuminative relation > (idafah ishraqlyah). so is tantamount to saying that " no existent thing has any relation whatsoever to the width of the eternal Knowledge ". (4) For there is absolutely nothing in the world that could stand face to face with God. and that is the real meaning of the statement that God knows all things. we can rightly say: God is with the things. It is God that turns His Face (wajh) to all things (5). 17-18). (1) Thus in terms of our ordinary use of the word " relation" (nisbah).. but this relation is so to speak the relation which a 'nothing' But to say (ld-shay') bears to a thing which is infinite" (2). 76. (4) Ibid. the relation which we are now taking about is no relation at all. on the other hand. 21 (11. of God. (6) But. 62-63.. we tend to imagine "nothing " as " something" and posit between the two terms a bi-lateral relationship Thus we often speak of the things standing in front (A<-B). however. p. And in this perspective.

Toshihiko IzuTsU (Montreal and Tehran)
. which are different from each other in terms of the depth of vision. being put together into one single semantic entity. The phenomenon of equivocation as understood by Hamadani consists in a multi-dimensional structure formed by two or more meanings (as those of the word " knowledge " at the [A] and [B] levels). " knowledge " (of God) indicates at the [B] level of discourse.170
TOSHIHIKO IZUTSU
It is this peculiar ontological situation that the word time.

Recommended Documents

Documents Similar To Mysticism and the Linguistic Problem of Equivocation in the Thought of 'Ayn Al-Quḍāt Hamadānī